Wakilii

Chandan Kumar v Majook (Civil Suit 752 of 2019)

High Court · [2023] UGCOMMC 87 · 2023 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract heard on formal proof following defendant's failure to file defence and entry of interlocutory judgment
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff with full recovery of outstanding contractual debt, general damages, interest, and costs

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The court found that the defendant breached a sale of goods agreement by failing to pay the outstanding balance of USD24,228 and failing to provide security as agreed. The plaintiff was awarded the outstanding amount plus general damages of USD4,800, interest at 20% per annum on the principal sum from the date of suit filing, and 6% per annum on general damages from judgment date.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff with full recovery of outstanding contractual debt, general damages, interest, and costs

Facts

On 1 March 2018, the plaintiff and defendant executed a sale of goods agreement for 2,296 boxes of liquor at a total price of USD41,328. The defendant made a part payment of USD17,100 and undertook to pay the balance of USD24,228 within thirty days. Under clause 9 of the agreement, the defendant was to provide a 10ft container of wheat with documents as security for the balance. The defendant failed to pay the balance despite repeated reminders and failed to provide the agreed security. The defendant did not file a defence, and interlocutory judgment was entered. The matter proceeded on formal proof.

Issues

  1. Whether there was breach of contract?
  2. What are the available remedies?

Orders

  • Declaration that the Defendant breached the contract.
  • The Plaintiff is entitled to USD24,228 (United States Dollars Twenty Four Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Eight only).
  • General damages of USD4,800 (United States Dollars Four Thousand Eight Hundred only).
  • Interest on the principal sum at the rate of 20% per annum from the date of filing this suit until payment in full.
  • Interest on general damages at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Parties Bound by Terms Executed
Parties are bound by the terms of the contract they execute, and a breach occurs where that which is complained of constitutes a breach of duty arising out of obligations undertaken under the contract.
Civil Procedure — Burden of Proof — Formal Proof After Interlocutory Judgment
Where an interlocutory judgment has been entered in favour of the plaintiff following the defendant's failure to file a defence, the burden of proof remains with the plaintiff to prove the case on balance of probabilities even at formal proof, though the question of liability is no longer in issue and only quantum remains.
Civil Procedure — Default of Defence — Constructive Admission
Failure to file a defence raises a presumption that the plaintiff's story must be accepted as the truth or constitutes a constructive admission of the claim made in the plaint.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment Factors
In assessing quantum of general damages for breach of contract, the court considers the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience suffered by the plaintiff, and the nature and extent of the injury suffered.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Court Discretion on Rate
Where no interest rate has been provided in the contract, the rate is fixed at the discretion of the court.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (14)

  • Behange v School Outfitters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal of 2000)
  • Barclays Bank of Uganda Ltd v Howard Bakojja (High Court Civil Suit No. 53 of 2011)
  • Nakawa Trading Co Ltd v Coffee Marketing Board (High Court Civil Suit No. 137 of 1991)
  • Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1993)
  • United Building Services Ltd v Yafesi Muzira T/A Quickset Builders & Co (High Court Civil Suit No. 154 of 2005)
  • Ewadra Emmanuel v Spencon Services Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 22 of 2015)
  • Smith Vs Auto Electrical Services Ltd (1951)24 KLR 22
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Storms Vs Hutchinson [1905] A.C 515
  • Crown Beverages Ltd v Sendu Edward (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal of 2002)
  • Crescent Transportation Co Ltd v Bin Technical Services Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2000)
  • Mwesigye Warren v Kiiza Ben (High Court Civil Suit No. 20 of 2015)
  • Uganda Development Bank Vs Muganga Construction Co. Ltd (1981) H.C.B 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Chandan Kumar v Majook (Civil Suit 752 of 2019) [2023] UGCommC 87 (12 September 2023)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.